--Crop circles predict something = hoax.
--More than one circle appears in a single night = hoax by more than one.
--Certain circles can't be duplicated by people = hoax.
--People sit in fields with cameras overnight = video tape orbs = circle appears = hoax.
--Farmers charge $1 - $3 (pounds) for the thousands of visitors now trampling all of their fields = hoax.
--Farmers destroy the circle because they are so mad it's there = hoax.
-- "white chips" are found at circle sites that can't be traced to compounds here = hoax.
-- 1500 foot long "writing" appears in a circle = hoax.

-- and now a police officer finds "aliens" in a circle = still a hoax?

Wait, I know -- the police officer is getting paid too!

Can someone PLEASE tell me at what point these blasted circles stop being a hoax?

I'll tell you one thing, it is in human nature to want to take credit for somethign we worked very hard on. So, there are various groups of people
who map out /create on computers the measurements of these crop circles.

These people then spend 4-5 hours a night in the dark going undetected to create such a beautiful ellaborate piece of artwork, not to take credit for
it? Some of these more recent ones are so detailed it would take a large group of people working quickly all night, and they would need light to see
what they were doing, unless they used nightvision I guess.

Even so, theres so much room for human error. These are so symmetrical and look perfect.

Man, if I had a hand in creating such a thing I'd be on it like Donkey Kong.

I'd be the first to run to the news atleast soon after and be like "Look, we did this, so it can be done."

So because no one has come forward to claim alot of these really sophisticated ones speaks volumes that no human probably did it.

By the way, this is my favorite crop circle. I like it so much Im getting it tattooed on my arm, sorry felt like sharing that...

There is an awful lot of sloppy thinking in evidence on this thread. Here is one tiny example. I'd have to reply to almost every post to nail all
the nonsense I see...

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Regarding the policeman's report, no one will ever know if it is true, unless he has retained some truly outstanding corroborative evidence to
support his hearsay story.

The word "hearsay" is being used in a pejorative sense, but quite incorrectly. "Hearsay" is evidence that's inadmissible in a court of
law becuase it relies on one person saying what another person has told them. That's why it's called "hearsay".

The police officer's account is first-person testimony. Colin Andrews' account of that testimony is hearsay until we can get it in the
officer's own words. And elysiumfire would know from the story as we have it so far that corroborative evidence is going to be unlikely.

Singling out that post is a little unfair, because much of it was thoughtful, far more than the majority of the knuckleheaded grunting that passes for
informed comment hereabouts.

As for those people who say it's dark at that time of the morning, it is not. By 4.30 it's getting nicely light in midsummer and visibility is
excellent by 5. I live in the South of England and am an early riser, so I know.

Those of us who've done our reading in the subject will know that there were COINTELPRO operations to infiltrate and subvert UFO organisations dating
back to the sixties. The crop circle phenomenon is getting the same sort of attention. I posted a link earlier in this thread to an interview given
by Colin Andrews in which he relates how someone who claimed to be CIA (and who had been presented to him as a crop circle witness on a TV programme
to establish his "credentials") attempted to recruit him. He offered to give him a device to tell real from fake crop circles, and he said,
"we're taking out people in the field one by one. You'll be the only one left. Then you'll turn around and admit it's all a hoax."

That account rings true for me.

As for the poster who wanted the creators of the crop circles to communicate in ways we understand... there are plenty of good reasons why not.

Firstly, this demand relies on the assumption that the thing to be communicated lies within the set of concepts our language encompasses. That's a
truly dumb assumption to make.

Secondly it ignores the possibility that by working through the process of deducing the meaning of these ideograms, we might learn something it would
be impossible to teach any other way. But of course this kind of thinking is par for the modern world, where people would sooner play the guitar hero
game than actually study the instrument. The idea of work as transformative activity is pitifully absent from modern society.

Thirdly, there is, like it or not, a long tradition in the more esoteric schools of human thought that symbols and ideograms can have a direct
influence on the human nervous system. Unlike the other reasons given above, this is contentious but I have reason to think there's something in it.

As for the poster who wanted the creators of the crop circles to communicate in ways we understand... there are plenty of good reasons why
not.

I never figured out why people thought it so outrageous that pictures would be used for communication. We have universal symbols used today that
allow people to understand the message being conveyed (danger, poison, etc.) despite the language they speak. We certainly have the technology
available to make this unnecessary, however it is used because it works, needs no technology, etc.

Firstly, this demand relies on the assumption that the thing to be communicated lies within the set of concepts our language encompasses.
That's a truly dumb assumption to make.

I agree. Any other planets with life on them could easily be millions of years ahead of us. It would be impossible to determine how advanced another
civilization is. Further, it is said that Earth goes through periods of extinctions and renewals. This theory could also be applied to other
planets. We have no way of ascertaining at what "evolutionary" phase another civilization could/would be at.

Secondly it ignores the possibility that by working through the process of deducing the meaning of these ideograms, we might learn something it
would be impossible to teach any other way. But of course this kind of thinking is par for the modern world, where people would sooner play the
guitar hero game than actually study the instrument. The idea of work as transformative activity is pitifully absent from modern society.

There was a 1500' long symbols/writing crop circle not too long ago. I think the more reasonable thought process would be that it was there for a
reason. Whether a message from above or below, it's rather naive to think that it was a bunch of men with nothing better to do. They could have
accomplished the same type of thing with only 20 feet - or even 100. But to put a 1500 foot long symbolic string together, would seem rather
redundant "just for the fun of it". Also, I call it overkill.

People, in their quest to label all circles as meanlingless entertainment, seem to forget the following:

1. Crop circles are a seasonal "business" which greatly cuts down on the profit. Equipment would be expensive: aerial phots, dvds, calendars, etc
-- all cost money to produce and maintain. Further, there are many different companies making such items. They can not "all be in on it" and keep
the "secret" going. Someone would have spilled the beans by now. Especially considering it would be competitive, someone trying to make money and
not able to would certainly blow the whistle on the others to ruin for them as well.

2. There are too many circles and too many highly detailed circles to claim that they are all made by the same people. There have been more than one
in a night, and four in a row night after night, with many, many miles between them. So now you would have many trained persons, apparently all with
similar skills and equipment, still keeping the secret. The more people involved, the greater the possibility of information being leaked. Plus, not
to mention the person that "blew the whistle" would be paid a decent sum from a tabloid to do just that.

3. People also point to the "circle makers" from the 80s that antied up to making a bunch of circles. They seem to forget - or not know - that the
one guy died about 14 years or so ago. Still, they say he's responsible.

4. The argument that farmers charge a fee to "look" at the circle within their field, and therefore are in on it as well is ridiculous in my
opinion. There are numerous fields that circles are found in. What do people honestly think: they have a secret farmers meeting and all agree to
allow the makers to destroy their crops in the hopes of making a few thousand pounds (if that) from visitors? Then they all also shake hands and
agree to never speak of it again. People tend to forget human nature in these explanations.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.